Aperture 3 > Lightroom 4 Migration File Format?

[Mac In School]

It's going to be a painful move. Based on the homework I've done so far, I pretty much have to choose between keeping my master raw files or keeping my edited images. There doesn't appear to be a way to keep non-destructive edits from Aperture to Lightroom.

After much deliberation, I've decided I'd rather keep my edits. I'll miss my RAW files, but I'd rather lose them than have to re-edit everything.

What format would you export to? I'm thinking PSD. Possibly TIF. What about the JPGs that weren't shot in RAW? I think those are very important to go with PSD or TIF, so I don't further compress when I export.

Question 2: Once I choose between PSD and TIF, would you leave them alone when you bring them into Lightroom, or convert to DNG?

Thanks.

 

[Prodo123]

It's going to be a painful move. Based on the homework I've done so far, I pretty much have to choose between keeping my master raw files or keeping my edited images. There doesn't appear to be a way to keep non-destructive edits from Aperture to Lightroom.

After much deliberation, I've decided I'd rather keep my edits. I'll miss my RAW files, but I'd rather lose them than have to re-edit everything.

What format would you export to? I'm thinking PSD. Possibly TIF. What about the JPGs that weren't shot in RAW? I think those are very important to go with PSD or TIF, so I don't further compress when I export.

Question 2: Once I choose between PSD and TIF, would you leave them alone when you bring them into Lightroom, or convert to DNG?

Thanks.

DNG is a RAW format. If you're gonna convert to DNG, then move with the RAWs. Otherwise, don't convert to DNG.
Use PSD. Better compression (AFAIK) than TIFF, and lossless format.
You might wanna look into PNGs too, as they are lossless.

 

[OreoCookie]

What I would probably do if I were in your stead is:
(1) Keep Aperture installed to be able to edit old RAWs and export them as tiffs/psds when necessary.
(2) Create jpgs from the files in your library and import the jpgs into Lightroom.
(3) Start importing all new RAW files into Lightroom.

This will save you a ton of space, you will not lose any edits and if you want, you can still re-edit single images in Lightroom starting from the RAW files.

 

[sapporobaby]

What I would probably do if I were in your stead is:
(1) Keep Aperture installed to be able to edit old RAWs and export them as tiffs/psds when necessary.
(2) Create jpgs from the files in your library and import the jpgs into Lightroom.
(3) Start importing all new RAW files into Lightroom.

This will save you a ton of space, you will not lose any edits and if you want, you can still re-edit single images in Lightroom starting from the RAW files.

I pretty much recommended the same thing a while back. As there is no conversion tool (This will sell by the millions) the only way to proceed is to simply keep Aperture installed, but start from scratch with Lightroom. It is not the most convenient way to go but it is a way. I am sort of in the same boat. I am putting Aperture through its paces to see if I will stay or go. To the OP, I feel your pain...

 

[OreoCookie]

I pretty much recommended the same thing a while back. As there is no conversion tool (This will sell by the millions) the only way to proceed is to simply keep Aperture installed, but start from scratch with Lightroom. It is not the most convenient way to go but it is a way. I am sort of in the same boat. I am putting Aperture through its paces to see if I will stay or go. To the OP, I feel your pain...

You'd have the same problem if you'd migrate from Lightroom to Aperture: there are simply no »slider equivalents« for each of the RAW converters. Plus, you'd also lose most of the database part (e. g. associations of photos to albums, etc.).

 

[sapporobaby]

You'd have the same problem if you'd migrate from Lightroom to Aperture: there are simply no »slider equivalents« for each of the RAW converters. Plus, you'd also lose most of the database part (e. g. associations of photos to albums, etc.).

Hi. I think I did not explain my idea well enough. I would simply stop processing in Aperture , leave the current masters/originals there in the Aperture database and NOT export them. I would then start using LR and begin processing newly captured images. Stop with Aperture at say 1300 and start with LR at 1301. I would still maintain Aperture for those times when I need an older image or something but I would never use it again. Hope this is a little better to understand.

 

[TheDrift-]

Hi. I think I did not explain my idea well enough. I would simply stop processing in Aperture , leave the current masters/originals there in the Aperture database and NOT export them. I would then start using LR and begin processing newly captured images. Stop with Aperture at say 1300 and start with LR at 1301. I would still maintain Aperture for those times when I need an older image or something but I would never use it again. Hope this is a little better to understand.

^^^ I made the change a few months ago, thats what I did.

I think I have been into aperture only 2/3 times to get a file...I also prefer apertures book making facilities so Aperture is still handy to have around.

It was quite nice to start afresh with a new and more organised file structure

 

[maflynn]

You could export your RAW files with the amp sidecar. You'll lose the edits, but retain some (all?) of the keyword info.

I like using DNG but I wouldn't recommend it as a migration from aperture to LR. I think the suggestion of exporting your existing images to JPGs is probably the best as that will retain your edits and what not.